The Blue Board

I thought the fallout 2 controls were goofy. I had just finished Mass Effect 2 in which I felt the controls and UI were smooth as butter and Fallout 2 seemed clunky..

edit...sorry fallout 3 was the one I didn't like, not 2...

it was actually fallout 3 I didn't like...

Fallout 3 ASAP. I haven't played 1 and 2 but I've seen videos of them. You're going to be quite surprised at what you're getting into with part 3 (in a good way).

Go ahead and get Fallout 3 "Game of the year edition" so you get all the extras.

Skyrim is the GOAT in my opinion, and the Elder Scrolls Online looks VERY promising.

I am still playing Skyrim actually.

Should I get Fallout 3 if I am not interested in the setting? Meaning, I love games set in medieval times... post-apocalyptic stuff, not so much

No

I click your avatar every time.

The setting is kinda irrelevant. It's just an amazing game.

You could also start w New Vegas. IMO the apocalyptic backstory is irrelevant. Plus, the desert wasteland setting is the tits. First time you walk into new Vegas it's like "oooooh"

Fallout New Vegas is not the sequel to Fallout 3 therefore the apocoliptic backstory wouldn't apply here. If anything it's a prequel of sorts. Although the gameplay in New Vegas is identical to FO3 developed by Bethesda, the game itself is a side project developed by Obsidian Entertainment (I believe they did parts 1/2). From what I've read Bethesda owns the Fallout name now and plans to make several more Fallouts all sequels to the original while Obsidian develops a few more "side project" fallouts like New Vegas. The cool thing is you can literally keep everything the same, change the locations and keep making the graphics/storylines better and better as you go and I'll buy every last one of them. Don't change core whatsoever. What they started with part 3 set the stage for many more imo and you'd have to think that was their intention with this series. If it has the word fallout on it I'm getting it. End of story.

Ugh. Seriously dude? I have played FO3 and NV like a hundred times apiece. All DLC's. Everything. Not sure why you feel the need to drop a history/education lesson on me. I'm acutely aware of the design of the games.

Marshall said he doesn't like post apocalyptic stuff. I suggested he try NV first (which OBVIOUSLY is still post-apocalyptic, since it is set AFTER the events of FO3). It's not as centered on the storyline as FO3. It's way more political/philosophically centered, and has little to do with anything in it's predecessor.

Finally, the actual "setting" of FO3 is irrelevant to me. Find your dad. Shoot bad guys. Turn the water on.

Hell, the DLC's take you to space, the Swamplands, and Alaska. All are ridiculous and awesome and have no impact on the storyline.

Is this more clear?

PS. New Vegas is indeed post-apocalyptic. It DOES apply. The giant radioactive scorpions should've tipped you off.